WAVERLEY Borough Council could lose the power to decide where to build almost 10,000 houses by 2032, if it fails to finalise its Local Plan within two years.

Piling on the pressure to decide whether to “dump it on Dunsfold”, chief executive Paul Wenham warned Waverley’s watchdog community overview and scrutiny committee that if the council didn’t deliver the housing growth required and had no Local Plan in place by 2017, central government would seize its powers and take over responsibility for where they are built.

The meeting was the first opportunity for councillors to have their say on the draft spatial strategy document, which supports building 1,800 new homes at Dunsfold Park aerodrome south of Godalming subject to a detailed transport assessment Waverley has commissioned but not completed.

It identifies a shortfall of almost 6,000 homes in meeting the government housing target but estimates nearly 3,000 can be built “on greenfield and other sites” mainly in or around Farnham and Cranleigh, and a further 3,000 can be built by allowing more at the airfield or by “further greenfield opportunities” around Farnham and Cranleigh, or a mix of both.

The housing document, which will be used as evidence in support of Waverley’s Local Plan, has already come under fire for being premature in identifying sites for major residential developments before assessing if they are sustainable on transport grounds.

Many of those speaking at the meeting, voiced concern that the document was flawed. Farnham Residents councillor Kika Mirylees said: “Why does Waverley seem intent on repeating the same mistakes of the past. This puts the cart before the horse.”

And while some in Farnham, such as independent councillor Andy MacLeod, have called for up to 5,000 homes at Dunsfold Park to avoid having to build the shortfall of homes on Farnham’s green spaces - a rift has formed with those at the other end of the borough directly affected by development at the aerodrome.

Hascombe Parish Council chairman Charles Orange said: “I think this document is a flawed numbers exercise, with dump it on Dunsfold for anything left over. Large-scale housing was previously refused on appeal as unsustainable so what’s changed.”

When Waverley’s head of planning Matthew Evans told Mr Orange about the expert transport report currently under way, he asked why it hadn’t been finished. Haslemere councillor Jim Edwards also asked when the report would be completed but was not given an end date.

“The Government could well remove Waverley’s powers,” Mr Edwards responded. “I would like to see Paul Wenham ensure we get on with this. I don’t care if officers have to work seven days a week.”

Echoing Mr Edwards’ complaints, Cranleigh councillor Mary Foryszewski said it was frustrating the transport report was not finished.

She was disappointed the housing document was “not robust” and described the housing requirements for Farnham and Cranleigh as disproportionate - with Farnham potentially having to take between around 20 and 50 per cent of the borough’s new homes, depending on the scale of development at Dunsfold.

“If we ignore Dunsfold Park it is at our peril,” she said. “let’s stop being anti-Dunsfold and see what we can do going forwards.”

Fellow Cranleigh councillor Brian Ellis said: “While we wait for the Local Plan and neighbourhood plan, developers will gather like bees round an open pot of jam. For God’s sake can Waverley get on with the Local Plan. We want to get on with our neighbourhood plans and we can’t get on with neighbourhood plans until Waverley has got its Local Plan.”

Farnham councillor Carole Cockburn said: “I’m concerned about the soundness of the strategy. I sat through Waverley’s curtailed Local Plan examination in 2013 and the last thing we want is to see another one rejected.

“You should not put vast numbers of houses in areas that need mitigation if you haven’t got it. We have two beautiful settlements at Cranleigh and Farnham under threat. No site in the borough ticks as many boxes as Dunsfold Park.”

Farnham Residents councillor John Williamson said: “Once again we are being asked to agree the location and amount of housing before being shown the evidence that constrains it. We are not following process.”

Cranleigh councillor Mike Band, who is also the Mayor of Waverley, submitted his objections to building a major settlement at Dunsfold Park in writing: “It seems to ignore the reality of existing population distribution, identified in the original 2013 GL Hearn Report and makes little attempt to match future housing with regional demand within the borough,” he wrote.

“Given the land availability constraints identified, surely more work should be focused on developing a Spatial Strategy which justifies on sustainability grounds why the Strategic Housing Market Assessment figures cannot be met.”

Feedback from the week’s meeting will go to Waverley Executive, which meets on Tuesday, December 1, and Waverley is timetabled to approve its new Local Plan for publication next April.

Summing up the mood of this meeting, committee chairman Witley councillor Nick Holder said: “There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. I don’t think we can do it before April 2016.”

• Following the meeting, Waverley’s Lib Dems group added its voice to calls for the Tory-run borough council to reject the proposed ‘spatial strategy’ report, which is focused on the delivery of 1,800 houses at Dunsfold Aerodrome, and instead base its planning on the clear preference for 3,400 houses at Dunsfold shown by 80 per cent of the respondents to the council’s own consultation last year.

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

A statement by the Lib Dems read: “In view of the need in the recent housing needs assessment for 1,400 more homes than the number on which the consultation was based, Waverley should also be making a clear assessment of building 4,800 houses at Dunsfold as a way of meeting this additional demand.”